tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 30, 2014 5:00pm-7:01pm EDT
in moving out of the house hopefully in the law and on the backs of our children and grandchildren and i can't go along with that. it's the right policy to pass it. it's the wrong policy to pass on the debts to the future generations. for, i would have this amendment to offer is accepted by repealing the provisions of the 199 to pay for this come and i think everybody agrees that it's an important bill and it should be paid for, and this is a small cost of making sure that it's done, not only the right policy, but the right fiscal policy as well and i would ask for the committees support of this investment. >> does the gentle men insist on the point of order? spinet i would make a point of order on the amendment because it is not germane. the amendment violates the 16 and 17 because of the domestic manufacturing deductions
featured in the great oil companies is not of the same subject matter as the substitute. >> does the gentleman from california which to speak on the germane? spinet ibb that is germane and if it is the issue that is not, i would ask for a vote on that. >> the amendment is not germane in the nature of a substitute because it violates 16 and 17 by including the subject matter it isn't the same as the subject matter and the nature of the substitute. the point of order is sustained into the amendment is not in order. >> i would like to get a roll call vote. >> i would move to table the appeal of. all of those in favor signify by saying i. those opposed, no. in the opinion of motion table is agreed to. >> the clerk will call the roll.
you're recognized for five minutes. >> left me pick up on what he had to say. i thought that the process that you and braced for the tax reform was sound. i thought that the inclusion of the democratic minority was sound, and i thought that the rolloff was a sound even if we couldn't find a common ground on embracing the draft that you offered. recognizing that consistency is not the first word that comes to mind when we discussed the tax policy. we nonetheless are here today with this exercise because the tax reform didn't go forward. that is what we are doing here. back to the framework of the consistency that i offered a moment ago, i go to the house floor to make the orient the tax credit permanent knowing that it was unlikely that that was going to happen. but i also thought that moving the argument beyond the two years perhaps seven as it relates is a much more reasonable approach that would be more wisely accepted.
but we are going to be back here after the election doing essentially what we could be doing right now. and that is working on a two-year extension package plus tax reform didn't go forward. to continue to back and forth knowing that it's hard to defend the current tax system and i am suggesting with my amendment that we embrace the proposal in the senate, that we extend the special rule for the capital gain property made for the conservation purposes for two years, and that is what the senator has done and let me say that's what's going to happen even if we wait until after the election. >> i would say to my colleagues
that if we were to adopt this and we wer were to automatically pass a two-year extension of the conservation easement that would be the full window that had been unpaid for. and what we really ought to do is have it be permanent so i don't agree with the approach taken by the senate and i hope that is not what we do by the end of the year. >> what are the prospects that we are going to embrace the approach? spinet on the conservation easement? spinet on the tax extenders serious >> i think we have an opportunity to make some very critical tax policies. i don't be leave the house is going to simply rubberstamp the senate. >> i am suggesting the thrust of what he has done is what we are going to do to embrace -- >> i could do a wager on it, a
handshake. >> that's fine to me, but i think -- >> you are more in control of the outcome -- >> the time to be talking after the election is going to be something to work out which has been rare this year, so there is an opportunity at least to get between the two-year policy. we are somewhere in between that. but i would like to obviously get on the end of being permanent given the arguments that were made on this particular provision and the importance into the planning and the long-term nature that there are people. i hope the senate will act before the election. having talked at some length, i
hope that there is a chance to do that because i think that we should realize that we do not act soon, essentially we are talking about a one-year extension. so to do it after the election is a one-year extension. so i hope we don't assume that we are going to act on the extenders until after the election. i also think it is going to be wise for us to take a hard look at each of the extensions. i don't think that we should be a rubber stamp to the senate. but it's one thing not to be a rubber stamp, and another to pretend that's what we are doing today is likely to occur is responsible and is consistent
with the tax reform proposal that came out of the republican ranks in the ways and means committee. so let's not be a rubber stamp. let's hope the senate acts, but let's not pretend that what we are doing today is anything either consistent with what has been proposed or is responsible fiscally because we are talking about $600 billion plus mr. chairman, i think that you would acknowledge there will be other extenders that have to be part of a package. so we are not only talking about 600 billion, we are talking about 700 billion probably when you add all of the other positions and even more than that, if we take the path of
making things permanent without paying for them. so i think this amendment -- we shouldn't do it for each of these bills but at least a few 2.2 what you're trying to say and that is what the realistic let's move as soon as possible and not kick the football until after the election or throw a pass that isn't even a hail mary. it's irresponsible. >> i agree to the extent that i would like to actually add to these matters as well. but i don't think that we can do that without a committee
position on these matters. so that's why we are having these votes because we do have to have a house position in order to get in the best position to talk to the senate. i hope we can do that before the end of the year. i agree with that completely. just a moment to comment if i can just as important relative to what the tax code ought to look like. with a long-term policy ought to look like and no one here can look at the crystal ball and figure out what the chairman is going to come up with in two or three months or by the end of the year what will be agreed to by the committee and the senate leadership compared to what would be agreed to in the house and the white house. so it goes into the decision-making so many people have to engage and to come up with one conservation transaction as was alluded to by the gentle man in california they can take years to put in
place because they are not just about the tax code it's also about the other ingredients that will go into the deal. it might be some preservation money or local municipality money order help and support from the local land trust or conservancy and to get all of those parties and players at the same time coming together with a hopeful tax code into reality so here we have an opportunity to make a current tax to take away that uncertainty, to take away from that unpredictability that those people that do the work in the field is at his peak every day have to deal with such a think about what the senate leadership might be doing in a couple months misses the point. let's decide what the provision of the tax code ought to be and whether or not to be permanent
or not. we have an opportunity to make it permanent an and greenlight l these projects for the future in our areas and i think that we ought to take that opportunity and pass the provision as it is presented by the chairman and oppose the amendment. >> you may close on your amendment. >> the policy isn't in dispute, the process is and that's what brought us here the failure of tax reform. we are going to teasdale approach this is highly unrealistic and i'm suggesting the senate has already moved. it's not the suggestion we are going to buy into everything they do but they are the ones that are put on the mark and they move the process. so what you're offering with mr. thompson today isn't
something that we are arguing about. we are arguing about this process that brings together this ill considered a moment to do what we could have done with tax reform and give the long-term predictability. >> be issued to add some strength to the argument, when we wait until the lame-duck session to make decisions on this, we put the irs in the situation where they have one month before the paper is supposed to go out and people are supposed to begin fixing their taxes. we make an impossible situation for the irs by waiting this long and making this decision about something which is clearly not going to pass. he's already put out a proposal that tells you we ought to be
negotiating, not passing pieces of legislation like this that have no chance whatsoever of going through, and i think that's why the amendment is a much better way to go saying we have a place to start, let's start the negotiations now rather than on the 15th of december when we are all wanting to go home for christmas. we will still be here on this issue the way that we are approaching it right now. >> i might just say that the senate hasn't acted. the committee has put the senate hasn't passed anything with regards to extenders. this isn't a failure of tax reform this is incremental reform and they've acted on a permanent extender on the research and development and i think the 62 democrats supported that effort so we are making progress on the tax reform. it may not be in the complete
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] mr. mcdermott is recognized and has amendment to >> sometimes the rules around here are harder to understand that i think we are getting the picture. every week or so we have a meeting where we bring out some tax extenders chosen by the majority come and we vote on thedemand we don't have any opportunity to make suggestions
about what would happen. most everybody represents the state in which there is an income tax. they deduct from the federal tax when the file in the spring of every year. of those of us that come from states without income taxes but have tied sales tax have been by the tax extension every year given the right to deduct our sales tax. now, that's only fair and if we don't do it, millions of taxpayers living in states without the income tax will pick up a $3.3 billion increase because we failed to extend this exception because they cannot claim it on their income tax. millions of families -- we are going to make a big -- we are going to give an extension to
people at the top end of the day but millions of middle-class people in washington, texas, nevada, florida, tennessee, south dakota, wyoming will pay major increases in their income tax because of our failure to extend the tax deduction. for example in washington state sales tax exemption. this would be ruled o on german. i'm not stupid. i've been here. i know the rules. but the people in my state needed to know when the committee will take this issue up and where the members of the committee stand, and i would appreciate a timetable for you when you are going to bring out another six tax extenders. we only have 50 working days
left until the end of july so we don't have much time and i would like to know when it is going to come up and have an opportunity. the amendment is it violates 16 number seven because it offsets the domestic manufacturing deduction that majors in the great oil companies is not the same subject matter as the substitute. >> does the gentleman from washington state wish to be recognized? >> if you write adult height enough you can make anything on germane, but the question still remains to be answered when will it be germane to give fairness to the people of texas, washington, florida, wyoming, tennessee and others so that they can have the same advantage on their tax statements that
those that come from the states with income tax have. i don't see any reason why the tax bill will have a tax provision added to it they can't write it tightly to put anything else on it. that's what the game is today. )-right-paren so tight that nobody can add anything to them. that's why i checked to the chairman and ruling. ..
>> de klerk will report the boat. if there are further their amendments could questions on the adoption denature substitute. others in favor signify price a night. as opposed, no. the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. i will not recognize mr. johnson for the purposes of offering promotion. as amended to the house of representatives. >> the question is unfavorably reporting. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed signify by saying no. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will call the roll.
[roll call] >> the clerk will report the vote. >> 23 ayes, 14 nose. >> the motion is agreed to. h.r. 2807 is ordered favorably to the house of representatives spirit that objections staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the bill. members will have an additional two days to file with the committee clerk supplemental additional or minority views so what are.
the next order of business is introduced by mr. schoch and mr. blumenauer to make permanent certain tax redistribution for charitable purposes. you are not recognize for an opening statement on this bill. >> thank you, chairman can't hear it i want to see thank you for the approach you are taking to consider these taxes cannot thank you for the 4619 for today's market. the ira charitable distribution center was established as a provision of the pension protection act of 2006. several times since then that provision has expired and been reinstated by congress most recently in the american taxpayer of the fact that we passed in 2012. the time has come to make the temporary provision permanent airbase supporting the measure we will strengthen our nation network of charities that site on the frontlines against poverty, homelessness, elements in the literacy and hunger in communities throughout the
united states and also around the world. many of my constituents and many public charities in my district in the state of illinois has benefited from this tax on it. in the first congress made the option available, $140 million for donated. hundreds of millions more hot and committed. that is why organizations like the american red cross, the american heart association, salvation army, support this legislation. in illinois can the jewish federation of metropolitan chicago has raised more than $11 million from nearly 1000 ira kids since 2006. and in my district, organizations like the boys and girls club and hall center for his healthy living and the community foundation of central and royale seem to benefit from making this provision permanent. simply put, the ira charitable rollover is good for donors, good for our nation nonprofit
community and taxpayers. every dollar given to charity means one less dollar u.s. taxpayers must then to meet the same basic human need for a government program. in fact, when government has failed or been slow to respond to these needs, it is our nation's charities who mobilize mercy you ready to step in and help. they are the first to respond and the last to leave, effect we've seen in years. they tested the mental of our people. the financial collapse left millions unemployed and entire communities completely destroyed. the charities were there to provide job training, home mortgage assistance and help with utilities. when they built through oklahoma city or my district washington illinois and elsewhere, charities for their one to help rebuild whole communities and restore the shattered lives.
when earthquakes hit places like haiti and japan, killing hundreds of thousands in leaving countless behind as widows and orphans of his american charities who repair the water, food and physical emotional and moral support they made the difference. last year charitable giving in the united states grew by 4.9% topping $316 billion from the u.s. globally the united states is more than any other country according to the road giving index of 2013. that is because of the bottom of every american heart is an acute awareness that we have an awareness to help others. it has been said that no man ever becomes poor by giving too much. the same can be said of the nation. no nation has ever gone bankrupt because it is courage of his give. h.r. 4619 will strengthen the u.s. tax code, empower people to give more generously and provider nations charities have the resources they need to
continue the good work of helping others and they should be able to do this on a permanent basis. with that, i hope i can merit the support of my colleagues and i yield back to the chairman. >> thank you. mr. levin is recognized for no penstemon on the bill. >> i yield to you, mr. blumenauer. >> thank you, mr. levin. thank you, mr. chairman. paper reported much of my colleague and cosponsor this legislation has said. i would elaborate for a moment and karen says that the unique problems that are faced by older americans, perhaps it manages this revision is that it is available regardless of whether the taxpayer itemizes his or her return. many older constituents who take advantage of paid off their home mortgages in the mandatory
distribution element of their ira can contribute tax burden even if they end up donating the money for charity. the rollover provision rose these consequences and encourages americans a psychotic state to get back to the communities. it is frustrating to have it sees a back-and-forth. the mandatory ira withdraws cannot be retroactively rolled over to a charity. like several individual provisions they can't be fixed by retroactively renewing the tax extender. so it ends in the results in a lot for donor support for charities. but that said, i support this. we have an opportunity as a committee. one that all abuzz could get behind. this could be an opportunity to
pass it, make it permanent, provide support for the seniors. by rolling it into an almost $300 billion grab bag totally don't know what is going on further, that is frustrating. we would have an opportunity to drive policy, would not be that hard to offset. it models the message of the committee make you look like we are divided when it fact we don't need to be in with the appropriate time comes, mr. chairman, i would offer an amendment to pay for it for a couple years. i played to get to a point where we are dealing with the items that enjoy virtually universal support to not have arbitrary divisions and increases to the deficit. with that i will yield back. >> the committee will not receive to the distribution in
advance. without objection that there will be considered as read and open for an amendment in any point. i offer the nature and necessity which was distributed in advance allows the green sheet explaining it. the amendment in the nature should be read over at any point and consider tax for purpose of amendment. i will turn to mr. barthold and we will have questions after his presentations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. levin, members have before eventually committee jc x 55 which displays the underlying text of h.r. 4619 and the green sheet which is the chairman's amendment in the nature of the substitute. just by way of quick background under a provision of law which expire december 31, 2013. taxpayers who are older than age 70.5 could make a distribution of less than $100,000 from an ira directly to a charitable
organization and such distribution would be excluded from their gross income for purposes at the individual income tax. the proposal before you would reinstate the provision affect for the current tax year and make the provision permanent. that concludes my brief description. >> any questions for mr. barthold. mr. becerra. >> mr. barthold, thank you for the description you can eat so much of this was that over 10 years? >> mr. becerra, the estimated revenue loss from th
again if this is extended for two years, it would be a budget window. so we have an effect over time made this policy permanent by continual extensions. i think as mr. blumenauer pointed out, it is important to note when there is a gap as there has been on this terrible policy of tax initiatives, you can't make it up and we can't go back and necessarily have people participate you otherwise wouldn't. are there any further questions? two yards? >> i really don't think it is fair for the american taxpayers should be talking about a bill which would be costing $2.8 billion over 10 years, even though the two year extension
closer to 2 billion. just saying that something is a charity doesn't mean that it's the correct thing to do. and it would seem to need that with all the fraud that is out there and the deficit increasing that this committee would have a responsibility before we make such a provision permanent to be prepared to take testimony to make certain that the objectives in which this provision was created is still in effect. i know most of you watch television and you can see the idea is that if you want to help it better and, if you want to help someone, clearly you can tell by their short life that
they are fraud. and while all of those feel good about making contributions to what we think are worthy causes, how in the world can we ever explain to our voters that we have just decided purely for political reasons that we are going to present this to you for this committee and decide who voted for charity and who didn't vote for charity. there comes a time that politics has become so unfair when it comes to the institutions respected by all americans and rely totally on our contributions. so i feel as awkward as the majority in tended for me to feel, but i just think in terms of the fairness of the issue and the good that comes out of charitable organization that
[inaudible conversations] mr. blumenauer second extra five minutes on this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't want to belabor this. i've indicated why think this is important. but personally think we are better off being able to pay for this for the next couple of years until it is in the context of sorting are the ones we agree with that we can pay for, they don't necessarily have to decide as. i would respectfully request it be approved. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized on this point of order. >> mr. chairman, it is not germane to the amendment in the nature of the substitute. the amendment violates because it denies the domestic
manufacturing deduction with all companies not of the same subject matter as the substitute. >> mr. blumenauer's recognized on germane miss. >> i've got the point. i've made mine. i'll move on. >> i am prepared to rule the amendment is not germane in the nature of the said steve because house rules 67 men couldn't subject matter not the same as the subject matter of the amendment in the nature of the substitute. are there any further amendments? if there are no further amendments, the question is on the adoption of the amendment and nature of the substitute. of those in favor signify by saying aye. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and then amendment is agreed to. i now recognize mr. johnson for
the purpose of emotion you >> mr. chairman, i'm of the committee favorably report 4619 and cemented to the house of representatives. >> all those in favor signify that main aye. visit her signify by saying no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
>> the clerk will report the vote. >> 23 ayes, fort team no's >> 4619 as amended is ordered favorably report to the house of representatives. that objection can staff is to make technical and conforming changes the bill. members will have two days to file at the committee clerk supplemental additional or minority peace ordered. the next-door business of the bill introduced in mr. reid to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. you are now recognize for an opening statement on this bill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. into my colleagues on the committee come in my district i heard from food bank volunteers, farmers, small biz simply about the positive impact this proposed that we had before us today will have on their ability to the food banks and help their neighbors in need. to me, this is a fundamental
food for the needy, reduce waste in landfills, and provide parity between the different business types of the law now treats. i am happy to be able to promote legislation that brings together businesses and charitable groups to care for those in need in the community. it is only fair and that we pass this legislation the stand with the local community and help local food banks to what they do best, taking care of the most needy among this. so as my colleagues to join in support of this power and an extension and move full word to its final adoption on the floor. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. levin, you're recognized for opening statement on the bill. >> i think this bill illustrates vividly what is the state here. and so let me speak briefly to it. i support this bill in the sense i support the program. indeed, mr. girl walk, you and i
introduced a similar bill, and we have been working on this issue for years. and so there is depth of feeling about this. all of us have been to pantries, see how they are growing short of food. we'll have seen the value of having donations from the various supermarkets and also farmers, so there is no question here about the value of this provision. there is also serious question as to why we're doing this, why we're making it permanent, why we are doing so is part of a structure that would add another close of $300 billion to what is
already past 300 billion with a couple more probably hundreds of billions coming along so i just have to continue to ask why in the world are we doing this? it can be to set ourselves up for conference when the senate passes a bill of -- this provision is going to be in any conference report that comes out we know that. in making it permanent is not going to affect what comes out of a conference and i don't say this to embarrass you, i really don't. we have known each of the -- >> you don't need to say it then. >> of won't. that no one anybody think that
-- and so i want to reemphasize. and not saying this to embarrass you. i want to drive home the point. you made a serious effort. we did not continue the series average, but that was a good beginning. you cover in your document. and so now to make this a permanent just kind of talking it out of the extenders, and it is an important provision, it is a mistake. so it is not consistent. it is not responsible, and it is not going to lead to our serious consideration of tax reform.
indeed, it kind of is a step backwards because it says what you suggest to be repealed we make permanent. so i am going to vote no without any hesitation. and i will be able to go back to the groups that -- the staff back, and i have worked and are able to say clearly why we're voting no. people send us your to advocate for a specific provision but to do so in no way that takes into consideration other needs and is fiscally responsible. we have not considered most of the provisions that are in the tax extender bill. and some, like new markets and
the work opportunity credit are vitally important to us, and we are just proceeding as if where not going to take the mob or if we do it is going to add another hundred billion dollars when we put everything together. so while i guess we're kind of going through the motions your. you all are going to vote yes, and i, and i think my colleagues will vote no. but let no one think that there is any hesitation about the merits of this program, but this bill the way it is put together has immense demerits to it. and so i cannot allow an approach that is so, so wrong and is dangerous in terms of
programs we care about, i cannot let that move me to say yes on this. so i'm very much say, i very much urge you to reconsider. if not you will leave us no consequences but to vote no. i yield back. >> the credit will now proceed to consideration of h.r. 4719, which was distributed in advance. without objection the bill is considered read an open for amendment. i offer an amendment in the way of a substitute which was distributed in advance without objection the amendment in nature still be considered as open. again, we will turn to you to provide the technical description of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and have questions that your presentation. raw.
>> the underlying text of h.r. 4719 and a green sheet jaycee 864 which describes the chairman summoned and the nature of the substitute. by way of basic background i think it is useful of think of three components of the bill before you. under present law generally it gives of property of men from the inventory the taxpayer may claim the basis of the property as charitable deduction, as part of a prominent wall, special rule that applies to see corporations in the case of certain types of gifts of inventory among them gifts of food inventory that permit the deduction claimed for a c corporation to be the lesser of taxpayers bases plus half of be appreciated gain or twice the basis of the property. under a provision of law which expired dec. 301st 2013 that
same rule with respect to food and ventura was extended to businesses to pay taxes as other than sc-corporation. for example colossal proprietorships. and the bill before you today would make the special provision permanent law and in addition would make some modifications. one modification would increase the annual percentage limitation from 10% for a charitable gift of this sort from 10% of income to 15%. the second modification would apply in the case of taxpayers of the nancy-corporations to allow them, and certain circumstances, to treat the basis of their food inventory as equal the 25 percent of the fair market value.
the third modification is that her would not -- would be made notwithstanding certain standards that the taxpayer might have for what they would permit to be sold to their customers. effective for contributions after dec. 31st 2013. >> thank you. i think particularly this is important because this would represent the fixed 2-year policy of this kind, which is well past the budget window. i think this cries out to be made permanent because of the perishable nature of food which is meant for the past six months past due entities have not been able to use this provision to donate to food pantries and the like.
the testimony we had before the committee again from diana aviv, the ceo of independent sector said the expanded incentive has been vital as community food pantries and other communal providers attempt to keep pace with a growing number of baca -- of americans to go to bed hungry. i hope my friends on the other side have not got the gun and said we will vote no on everything. i hope this is one you will take a close look at because it has been extended to the budget window. without being paid for in a sense we have said it is permanent policy. this is one that is particularly relevant for moving forward. >> and pleased to hear you say that. and a view rejected this concept in your comprehensive bill that you have presented to the committee just a few weeks ago. i do support the concept of incentivizing businesses to
donate food to food banks and similar organizations. i do have some specific questions about this bill. if i understand, and business can obtain and enhance tax deduction for up to twice what it paid for the product that it is donating if that product qualifies. >> that is correct. >> and with reference to what food qualifies, under the statutory definition, it must be apparently wholesome food. >> that's correct. >> and there is not a requirement that the food actually be wholesome or nutritional, it just has to be apparently wholesome, right? >> let me check with my colleague briefly. >> with reference to the statue which defines the act, isn't that correct a bag of halloween candy the knees to get off the shelf before thanksgiving qualifies for this deduction?
>> if you are asking if they're is a nutritional standard in terms of shares or fat -- >> if i might, i have the hansard. the finding statute. >> yes, i've got the statute. the stale bag of potato chips or usher resaw string that is about a year over its celebrate. all of those things qualify because there is no requirement that the food be actually wholesome. >> as i said, the statute does not place a nutritional standard >> right.
in fact, at this very moment of the republican colleagues over in the house appropriations bill -- committee are attempting to approve a major rollback of healthier school lunches at the time we consider expanding a subsidy for foods that are both healthy and none of the at that time that we have a virtual epidemic of diabetes and increasing concern about child abuse in. this bill, if i read your green sheet correctly, comes out for an average cost of about $200 million a year. that is a we're being asked to pay for this. i don't know how much of the 200 million is stale potato chips and twinkies and sugary drinks and candy. but a portion of it is, and that think we have to make choices as to whether we ought to be subsidizing those things, using that to improve our schools and
for other purposes. this bill is also presented as part of an apparently wholesome tax package. in fact, the assistance on barring another $600 billion of business -- for business tax breaks will do our economy and what twinkies do for nutrition. i don't believe there is merit to such a broad deduction. i believe that had we gone through the normal legislative process that there is near unanimity -- unanimity at least until the chairman put out his broad tax proposal that eliminated this provision, and that for c corporation also that there would be broad support but there would be an opportunity to try to craft a more targeted deduction just as if we were talking about the direct spending program. we would be looking to cut out waste and inefficiency. well, i think this is basically a good concept but it is
accompanied by considerable waste and inefficiency that we ought to be dealing with rather than writing that into permanent long as this bill does. and so i have support for the concept but reservation about the specifics of this bill and how it not only encourages the the nation of healthy food but something that is definitely not wholesome, only appears to be, much as this bill appears to be something that will help the economy has all but clearly is neither all some are healthy for the american economy. i yield back. >> mr. chair. >> mr. griffin. >> mr. griffin, i think that the standard here is one not too different from that applied to food stamps. it is interesting to hear my colleague, out in favor of excluding some of these foods from food stamp purchases because it is basically the same standard. so that is a conversation that
we can have another time because i did not realize that there was such cross support on that side of the aisle to limit food stamp purchases. it is the same standard. >> will the gentleman yield. >> to my colleague from texas, helped a colleague does realize that some of this food you're referencing that is not wholesome is utilized by food banks and other entities for children and a birthday parties. so if you really want to get this through the base of the people you're going to impact by trying to regulate a big, bureaucratic, one size mandated type of menu, understand you will impact of the people and children and their birthday celebrations. i just don't think the gentleman from texas wants to do that. with that, i yield back. >> i want -- i believe the word wholesome food is a term that is found fda rates, is it not. >> no.
>> fd 85 am not familiar enough. >> and i believe it is defined in the statute as well. >> well, it is defined in the statute. it is food intended for human consumption meeting quality and labeling standards that may be imposed by the federal, state, and/or local laws. and. >> the rest of that definition. >> i have the time. >> would you yield. >> i have to yield. >> this is the definition -- >> statute. >> defined by cross reference to some of the statute governing agricultural regulations, mr. mr. chairman. >> and i believe it is also found an fda. are you aware of that? >> i would have to double check. we will double check. we will provide that all the members. >> i would just know that 42 u.
s. c. seven teen 92, the rest of the definition is regulations, even though the food may not be readily marketable due to a -- appearance in age, freshness, great, size, surplus, or other conditions. so the expired label, the twisted bag of twinkies kamal of these things are no excuse for providing the deduction. applies to all of those things, and i think it could be more narrowly tailored. >> i thought twinkies and a half life wonder that most of us at this table. >> probably true. it is covered either way. >> any further questions? yes, mr. davis. >> chairman, can you tell us whether or not the inventory
contributions of food inventory. i have a field to expand the deduction at fort c corporation. the food and ventura deduction allows us to help stock america's food banxquote and feed the hungry. of course i come from an area in chicago, one in six people, including children, do not know where their next meal is coming from. in addition to the advancing charitable donations of food and passing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for big corporations, our committee should be prioritizing the permanent extension of the earned income tax credit but by helping the working poor and others did basic needs for the family. we should be prioritized minimarket tax credit tell distressed communities where the hungry you have strong communities and good jobs.
and although i strongly support incentivizing charitable donations of food inventory, i do not support passing on page for permanent and piecemeal tax breaks while the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, like the long-term unemployed and working poor go on matt. i think you and yelled back. >> all right. are there any further questions? there being no further questions , are there any amendments to the amendment of the nature of the substitute? if there are no amendments the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. all those in favor signify by saying aye. as opposed to know. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the manager of the substitute is agreed to. i will now recognize mr. johnson. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee favorably report h.r. 4719 as amended.
objection staff is recognized to make changes to the bill. without objection members will have an additional two days to file with the committee card. so ordered. the next order of business is a bill introduced by mr. kelly. you are now recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you. thank you for brain of the spill. this is pretty much a common thing -- common-sense thing. add all think there's another country in the world that has given more to charity and america. in this piece is allowing people to have up until april 15th of the following year the opportunity to deduct from their income tax from the previous year's income tax their contributions. and i hope that we don't get into this situation where we keep football in this thing back and forth about why we're doing it. this is just simple, common-sense. i don't know why we have to make it some kind of political game about why we're trying to do
things to help people. all of a sudden turn that into some type of political bent. it is about america's top americans. 88 percent of american families make charitable contributions. there is no one else in the world in the history of the world that have had this hard that we have as americans. so i have all been here three and a half years and can see why the american people sit back and scratch their heads. what a minute. this is not exactly the way i like to roll this out. as much as i like to give money and help other people, after come up with some kind of a political curve because it is not good enough the way it goes out. it is not good enough to have a good heart, to open your wallet and help people in need it. all this does is allow people taken to new make charitable contributions. it is just too we are. it is so basic. this gets confusing for me to
sit and watch this. i'm sure for the people at home they sit back and really wonder about what the heck they're talking about. we have the average into the to do things to help people. yet because of some kind of political ideology we don't want to be really wanted more fit into something different. i just don't get that. as far as things being paid for, if there was not a concern why all the sudden now as this great thing, we have to pay for this stuff. the other side, as a taxpayer all my life i get disappointed if the decisions that are made with my dollars in saying, the problem is your does not giving enough, some pretty basic pieces of legislation. i appreciate your bringing forward and hope my colleagues feel the same way. this is quintessentially who we are as americans, allowing people up to april 15th of the year following when they would be paying their income tax system like a charitable deduction. that is just good common sense. i yield back.
>> thank you. mr. levin is recognized. >> well, i guess it falls to me to china state why we have concerns about this bill read it has nothing to do with politics, and it has really nothing to do with the importance of charitable contributions, which we very much support will be the problem is, this is not an extender. has not been in existence for 30 years. has not been in existence about. there have been have few times when there has been a specific event in the world where we extend it, and i don't have at my fingertips, because this kind of came out of the blue, and exactly what those occasions are, but i remember a few.
but it was -- it was possible because they were specific events and to extend the time because in terms of the administration of the code and also from the purpose of the taxpayer in terms of certainty it was possible to do that. but now to say for all charitable contributions we change from a calendar year to essentially a fiscal year is not something that is easy for me -- the irs to administer and actually is not even going to be so easy for that tax bear to carry out. i did have a chance to talk to us cpa about this because i just felt we would get a practical reaction. and he just emphasized how
difficult it would be to implement this to make sure that those rules were being followed and there was not a mistake made inadvertently. and perhaps in some cases less then inadvertently. we have not had any hearings on this. and i just think in terms of the integrity of this committee when we raise proposals like this we should sit down and have a hearing and discuss the pluses and minuses of it. so there is no motivation here except to try to make sure that when we address proposals to change the code now we have the necessary hearings and we have the necessary back and forth, as. that way i think we will improve
the code. and it just does not meet that standard. it is not an extender. it is brand new in terms of a general policy crew. i'm very much applaud your motivation. i just don't think we should kind of just take this up without the kind of serious consideration that is the very purpose. >> the committee will now proceed to consideration of h.r. 34. without objection the bill considered as read and open for amendment. i offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which was distributed in advance. without objection the amendment and the nature of the substitution be considered as open for amendment at any point in considered based text. i will turn to mr. barr told to provide the technical description of the amendment and the nature of a substitute and will have questions after your
presentation. >> thank you, mr. chairman pbgc x54 describes the underlying text of h.r. 3134. in short, this proposal permits individuals to elect to deduct for a taxable year charitable contributions made after the close of that tax will year which four individuals is almost always the calendar year. but the contribution must be made no later than the due date without regard to any extensions for the individual's income tax return for the taxable year preserve generally by april april 15th. and the chairman's amendment would make clear that this is effective for elections made with respect to tax lawyers beginning after july 13. that concludes my description, mr. chairman. abbey answer any questions or
members might have. >> i would say we did have a hearing on this matter. we have a hearing february of 2013 on tax reform and charitable contributions, and we did receive testimony exactly on this point from eugene's turley of the urban institute. and quoting from him, allowing donors to deduct gifts until the filing of a tax return or april 15 would produce a very large bang for block. we have got a lot of positive feedback. obviously this was also contained in the discussion draft which was early february of this year. and i would just cannot that i have a lot of concern about the irs, but this is not an additional burden in that they already do this for contributions, so this is not necessarily a new effort. are there any questions? >> let me just comment.
>> thank you. again, can you tell us how much this adds to the deficit? >> on jaycee x 60 we have our estimate of the revenue of facts of the proposal as amended. and we estimate that it would lose approximately $3 billion over the budget. >> that fits of almost $3 billion deficit? >> yes. >> okay. and if my tally is correct, if we include this with the other three bills that have been voted now we are now at a total of about 14 and half billion dollars and paid for in tax breaks that would add -- be added to the deficit. >> actually, i have to say that while your addition is correct,
that would not be the total of all three bills considered together because since these are all charitable deduction provisions there is interaction between them, and the estimates that i have provided to you individually are assuming that that is the only provision that we are considering with no other changes. we have not consider these as a package. >> so roughly about $14 billion. >> we still and other bills to go. a billion here, a billionaire. priests' senates real money. >> i yield. >> i just was struck by mr. kelly's talking about the united states being the most generous country in the history of the world. as we know, we as a country in terms of our international contributions to international aid arm really quite a ways down
and terms of per capita, and it took me about 14 seconds to go to a global and find that there are a number of indexes that indicate that there are other countries that are likewise generous. in fact, they contribute be more people contribute and in the united states and more people volunteer time. i am not denigrating and all the charitable instincts of my constituents or anyone else but suggest that the united states is the most generous country in the history of the world flies in the face of some evidence that other countries are doing a pretty good job as well. >> thank you for that point. roughly 14 billion would be added to the deficit if this bill were to become law. would have to be paid for through other means, whether other americans get their taxes increased or other americans get their services cut. i am assuming that because in
order to take advantage of this particular tax break you have to file for deductions that this would also be a tax break it goes to only about one-third of americans who file taxes would be eligible to file for this particular tax break. >> generally that would be true, although i think if you were considering the entire package -- we will just leave it at that. again, as i noted earlier today, roughly 35% of refiling units itemize to climb a charitable deduction. >> is 35% of tax filers, americans who pay taxes file using the item is asian category if they happen to do this kind of charitable contribution they could, but obviously not everyone who files taxes using the long 1044 necessarily will
file for a tax break under this terrible deduction. so 35 percent is the number who file using the long form. that does not mean 35 percent of american taxpayers would actually get this tax break. finally, once again, this bill would make this provision permanent and tax law, so we would not go through this process we are undergoing today of examining whether it has value to continue this particular tax break that goes to always are certain number of americans. >> well, i think the fed chairman pointed out that this is actually a new provision. this is not an inspiring -- >> that's right. in other words, this has never been done before and would not provide a tax break only a certain number of american taxpayers and would be down for the first time but be making it permanent without ever examining if it has value on merit. again, not judging the value or merit but we would be making this a permanent without ever having an opportunity to examine if it was good tax policy.
with that having said that knowing that we are going to add more to the deficit with a couple of other bills to come out will close with that and yell back the balance of my time >> i was just going to observe that chairman's point that the committee did have some hearings on the general issue of charity and included this point. >> and also that charitable working groups. >> i just want to emphasize, we had a hearing around charitable contributions, but we really did not dig into the feasibility of this. and we should be doing that. whether it is possible to really administer this bill for the taxpayer in terms of making sure the validity of a contribution deductions and in terms of those
who have to look at tax returns. i mean, we really should be spending some time looking into this. this is a new proposal. so it could just say because someone at a hearing raised it as something that was positive, that's fine, but that is not the way we should be conducting ourselves. >> mr. kelly. >> thanks you, chairman. the real purpose is to give americans who want to be more generous with their own money three and a half months to contribute to charities. i don't know if we have the ability to determine, as we make these contributions to different charities what affected has. i have watched what happens with the american people, and i am
not confused about this of all when i talk about americans being the most generous in the world. it would be hard for me to imagine looking over the course of history that anyone could look to any other place on the glow and say, you know what, america pales in comparison to what these people of down. you can go back to whatever time from you want to end changes around and play with different figures to try, but something and maybe make sense in the debate but does not make sense of mystery to to really of the first responder to everything that happens in the world that is bad, the first ones there with the most. we have always been that way. it is just who we are. given out welcome the help of our country, sacrifice over 1 million people to defend freedom and liberty around the world which is a hell of a contribution. somehow suggest that america is not doing its border does not do as much as a of a country's is absolutely hogwash giving our refused to sit here and listen.
i am tired of this medical practice. there is nobody that does more for the world that america. we feed people. we provide medical assistance. we show up every time their is a disaster. all we're doing here is a long people above three nap months to look into their hearts and remove from their wallets that which they want to do to help other people. that is basically you america is and to america has always been. why would we have a debate about do we really? i have no idea how you would come up with that statement. i will give you 66 years of being on the surface of this globe and knowing who is always there and those the most. we sit in the same body representing the same people. i would never ever suggest that the american people somehow don't measure up to any other country in the world or any
other people in the world when it comes to charitable giving. three and a half month extension to allow americans are going to pay their taxes to take some of that money and give it to a charity which they like to give it to where they think it will be spent the best and will be having the most impact. that is not an odd concept. that is american. and thank you for bringing this peaceful word and hope that we can come together and do something that makes sense. i yield back. >> i don't see anyone else seeking recognition. if there are no further questions, are there any amendments to the amendment and the nature of a substitute? if there are no amendments the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. all those in favor. >> those opposed. >> in the opinion of the chair eyes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. i now recognize mr. johnson. >> mr. chairman, i move the
>> the clerk will report the vote. >> 23-12. >> being 23 and 12, the motion is agreed to. h.r. 3134 as amended is ordered favorably reported to the house are representatives. without objection staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. that rejection members will have an additional two days. the next order of business is a bill introduced by mr. paulson and davis to modify the tax rate for excise tax on investment and, private foundations. you are now recognized for an opening statement on the bill. >> thank you. let me thank you for your continued dedication to having a very deliberate and thoughtful approach to tax simplification and reform and for holding this
markup today on h.r. 4691, the private foundation excise tax simplification act. i would like to thank my colleague for serving as an original cosponsor and for his efforts to championing this provision and prior congresses. private foundations make a world of difference to our communities my home state of minnesota over 1400 foundations donate more than a billion dollars annually to those in need. nationwide across the country more than 81,000 foundations donated a total of almost $2 billion into those 11. as impressive as these figures are, they could easily be higher. unfortunately the tax code discourages large and increasing donations by private foundations the net investment excise tax has long been a source of confusion and frustration, especially for smaller foundations which can have endowments that vary in size significantly from year to year. today these institutions face a complex 2-tiered system of taxation which requires them to
pay either 01 or 2% excise tax on investment income in order to qualify for lower rate in a given year a foundation must an amount greater than they're average to a nation of the previous five years which provides a perverse incentive for a foundation not to make a large donation in times when the need might be greatest such as after an actual disaster or during tough economic times to realize the nation was significantly increase of private foundations 5-year average and make it difficult to qualify for the lower excise tax and not only the next year but in the following four years as well. this legislation eliminates the disincentive to make large donations and times of need by replacing the 2-tiered system with a very simple, flat, 1% excise tax on all private foundation investment income which will simplify the tax planning process especially for smaller foundations that now must spend about iowa resources on accountants and lawyers instead of grantees. it will also insure that charitable giving decisions are made based upon the needs of our
communities, not on the tax code the bottom line is every dollar these organizations are paying in taxes means one less dollar for those in need. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. davis is now recognized for the purpose of an opening statement of the bill. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the ranking member. it has been my pleasure to actually joined with mr. paulson in the introduction of h.r. 4691 come on the private foundation excise tax. i come from a state with zero strong foundation base, and i have long championed in proving the private foundation excise tax provisions to allow private foundations to better respond to the needs of their communities during economic trouble and natural disaster.
charitable foundations donated over $46 billion annually, and in illinois alone foundations give over to one 1/4 billion per year. unfortunately, the current tax code provides a disincentive for foundations to increase their investments during times of economic turmoil. a current 2-tiered rate means that if foundations increase their giving in any year to meet heightened need due to natural disasters or the recession, the unfortunate result is higher taxes for five years. this bill removes this penalty for increased giving by creating a flat excise tax. when philanthropy thrives community's drive. while i support revising the tax code to help private foundations aid their communities, i do not
support passing on page for permanent and piecemeal tax breaks while the needs of our most vulnerable citizens like the long-term unemployed and working poor go one matt. i think you, mr. chairman and yelled back. >> thank you. the committee will now proceed to the consideration of h.r. 4691 which was distributed in advance. without objection the bill will be considered as read an open for amendment. i offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which was distributed and vans explaining without objection in shelby considered as read and considered based tax reform of amendment. again, we will turn to you to provide the technical description of the amendment and the nature of a substitute and have questions after. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members have before them jaycee extra six which describes the
underlying tax and the chairman's amendment, the nature of a substitute as described in the green she. in short, as described by mr. paulson, present law provides for a 2-tiered system of tax bill excise tax on private foundation investment come, 2% year and 01% year with the difference depending upon the past level of giving. the proposal before you replaces the to raise system with a single rate of 1%. and this proposal would be effective upon the date of enactment. beginning after the date of enactment. >> thank you. any questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bartels, the committee on taxation, you all came up with the estimate that this particular provision would
increase the deficits over the next ten years. >> that is correct. that is what we report. >> okay. and going to the same question that i have gone to in the past, in this case the tax filer that would get this tax break is not an individual but a foundation. >> that's correct. >> going through that same analysis i went through a four -- i have looked at some numbers and there are 220 million. of those you have only about 160 of those 320 million the tax filers. head of household, couples, and center perry do have fewer tax filers and people of the country there read 160 million americans to file taxes for the families
and for themselves clearly 160 million american taxpayers are not going to benefit from this $2 billion in tax breaks. >> that's correct. i mean, when we talk about the one under 60 million tax filers if we are referring to the individual income tax for the payroll taxes. and this is the tax on investment income of private foundations. a totally separate game. >> and i would probably venture a guess to say that the number of tax filers were private foundations that will benefit by this tax break of $2 billion which will be covered by the rest of us is fewer than a million. i cannot imagine there are now in private foundations. >> of fair number of private foundations. and i will check the number of private foundations. it wrecks that would be helpful.
embrasure having gone through this assessment of some of the foundations in the past that we won't find anywhere near a million private foundations who take advantage of this. finally like all these other provisions weather weather and they're is a merit to a small fraction of the american tax to the public is one thing we did not even have hearings on this, but this change of this bill were to pass and become law would become permanent and thereafter each year this tax break that would go to a fraction of tax filers costing 2 billion of the next ten years will continue forward whether or not we agree or disagree on the merits of proposal.
this bill would change one permanent provision and exchange it with another. it is changing as the tax rate or permanent provision of law the short answer yes, but it is changing the tax rate of a permanent provision. >> it is not a new provision. it would permanently change it and a way that costas to billion dollars. the loss which means it adds to the deficit roughly $2 billion. if some other taxpayers will have to cover some mile, increased taxes for them or loss of services for them. one final point is that we have gone through this $2 billion cost, a fraction of americans. at some point we will get to go through this in a more meaningful way.
helping the have a full discussion so that we could, but the way to reform our tax code so it could make sense rather than go through that process at this stage, we are adding more complexity, cost to the tax code which had nothing makes sense to most people, but i think we will find is that we're going to want to continue forward with some of these provisions because they make sense even at a cost that hopefully will reappear as possible. "we are doing is adding to the deficit now. if this provision were to pass and become law we would now have -- this committee would have 16 and a half billion dollars to the federal deficit without paying for it and eventually costing american taxpayers higher taxes to them or decrease services to them in order to cover these tax breaks that are
drawing to a fraction of the american public. we still have one of the bill. it will yield back the balance of my time. >> this was also subject, but more than 7-hour hearing on charitable issues. also, something that came up in the working groups of many months something that the private foundations cantor was for. the complexity of the current law. my question for you is does this not simplify the calculation as a result of this change? some private foundations give reduced to 1% in the way depending on their qualifying distributions. because this now would have a straightforward 1% excise tax does that not simplify the kirk relation for many of our foundations? >> making it simpler for the person filing the return for a foundation. this would clearly be a simplification for the foundation.
>> and yemen's that vary from year to year given the raid in which we saw certainly in 2008 and after surgeons have significant different asset base >> well, as you are eluding, the calculation of whether you qualify for the 1% rate or the 2% rate depends upon your history of distributions and your distributions arkie of your asset base. ..